The Event

I've been watching the television show The Event and last night realized the resemblance of The President in the series to President Obama.

The show, subtitled "What will you beLIEve?" could be science fiction as it has people from another planet or place and they have knowledge/power beyond what mere humans have, but really is more of a mild drama. There are no phasers or funny weapons. And they don't bend the laws of science very much.

The President in the series is played by Blair Underwood, a light skinned, good looking African-American. He was elected two years ago and according to his bio is "Moral and idealistic. Hugely popular with the American people and around the world, (he) wants to be a new kind of President, working toward a new America. He's committed to honesty ..." Like our real president, the president in this series is not fully, African-American, he was "born to Cuban refugees in Miami, Florida" and "is very proud of his Afro-Cuban roots. He is a graduate of Yale University."

But last night while watching an episode on my DVR, I noticed a deeper similarity, something in the character of the man that matches President Obama. In the episode, a man who tried to kill the president had been captured and was about to be interrogated. The President demanded that he be allowed to question the individual and that he could get answers. I'd seen it before in the series (although I can't remember the scenes), places where the President got involved in order to handle some seemingly small issue, not letting the experts do their job. The President thinks he can fix anything. He believes that he is Interrogator in Charge, Chief Fence Mender and Overall Head Honcho.

We've seen this in real life, with the mishandling of the Shirley Sherrod case, getting involved before he knew all of the facts. It can be seen in the  Henry Gates case, by saying the police "acted stupidly" then having a beer summit to ease the tensions. He weighed in on the 9/11 Mosque, an issue that should have been handled by the residents and officials of New York City. And we've seen the President get involved to fix important things (like medical care) where the government has no business meddling.

Like the President on The Event, President Obama thinks it's his job to fix anything and everything that comes up

For previous posts on related to this see here and here.

Is there a statute of limitations on racism?

Seems one Shirley Sherrod, former USDA official made some "mistakes" in a speech. In her speech, she outlined where she didn't work as hard for one person as she could have and her motivation was racism. What's different about this story is that Sherrod is black and the person she didn't work hard for was white.

In a hurry to prove there's no "reverse" racism here, the White House has apparently asked for, and received her resignation. Full story here.

Tea baggers will have a field day with this, saying it proves there is rampant racism in the White House. The NAACP has already spoken out against Sherrod's actions, saying essentially that racism is racism, regardless which color is targeting the other color.

I have two comments. First, Ms. Sherrod said she learned from the issue. She learned "that it wasn't just a black and white issue. It was about those who have and those who do not." (Source)

Umm. Seems Ms. Sherrod has traded racism for class-ism.  How would she treat someone who "has" who was needing her help? Would she work hard for them, or do just enough to make it look like she was working?

Second is that this issue happened 24 years ago. She re-tells the story and tells how she learned from it. I'm very glad for her and hope many people can live from her story. My question is, when does the statute of limitations on racism run out?

To answer that question, Ms. Sherrod might ask Trent Lott. You see, then Senator Lott reminded us that Strom Thurmond ran for president once and commented he would have been good for the country. A lot of people were upset because Thurmond ran on a segregationist platform.

But like Ms. Sherrod, Thurmond learned to move beyond racism over the years, supporting the Voting Rights Act and making the birthday of Martin Luther King a holiday. (see my post here). So should Trent Lott have been punished for something that happened 50+ years earlier? Or did he perhaps realize that Thurmond had learned a lesson and maybe have been a good president after all?

Maybe it's time to listen to our president and realize that talking about racism is simply a distraction.

Some thoughts on racism

Lately, thoughts about racism have been on my mind quite a bit. Watching politics as I do may have started the thought process. Add to that the book series I've been reading about the Second War Between the States (see my post here). Then, there was the death in June of a man that I know had some racist tendencies, but also could see through some of the fog.

But regardless, the reason, I've been wondering about racism and our nation. To start with, I needed to understand the real definition of racism. I found lots of definitions on the web: prejudice that one race is superior (or that another is inferior); discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race; the belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.

I also have been wondering about other -isms. Say for example a man treats women differently. He puts women down, calls them things like "bimbos" and refuses to hire women for "man work". That's as wrong as racism. This could affect men as well as women (As a college student, I was told I was turned down for a co-op position because I was male).

There are also regional -isms. Being a Southerner, there are some people that think I have an accent (actually, they have the accent). When they hear my voice on the phone, they may immediately start treating me differently. I may be turned down for a job, get a higher interest rate or in extreme cases, be targeted for violence because I don't sound like them.

So, with these seemingly random thoughts to start off, I will post some thoughts on racism over the next several posts, with some other subjects sprinkled in between. I invite your comments, but would offer some caution. There are some potentially sensitive subjects and I ask all commenters to be cognizant. If I deem some comments inappropriate, I will delete them or single them out. This is my blog and you have freedom of speech as much as I allow. That said, I invite contradictory ideas.

The president on racism and health care

Sometimes, I have a great deal of respect for President Obama. Today he was on NBC's Meet the Press. You can watch the video of his part of the show here. You can also click on "transcript" and read what he had to say. Some quotes below are from that transcript.

Recently, a former president said that some of the negativity around health care were driven by racism. When asked about that in today's interview, President Obama said "Look, I said, during the campaign, are there some people who still think through the prism of race when it comes to evaluating me and my candidacy? Absolutely. Sometimes they vote for me for that reason, sometimes they vote against me for that reason. I'm sure that was true during the campaign, I'm sure that's true now."

The president gets it. True, there are some racists out there. Some vote with him because he's black, some vote against him for the same reason. Pure and simple. But he doesn't fret about it. He can't change other people, so he goes on about his business. He said this during the campaign and I (sadly) think he'll have to say it again.

More importantly, the president gets the real reason for the debate on health care. The president realizes it's "an argument that's gone on for the history of this republic. And that is what's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look after one another?"

As my British friend would say, Spot on! He even goes on to tell us some of the history behind the argument - "This is not a new argument. And it always invokes passions. And ... it was a passionate argument between Jefferson and Hamilton about this. You know, Andrew Jackson built a whole political party around this notion that somehow ... a federal government that was over ... intrusive."

Mr. President, I agree. The argument is about the role of government, and I, along with others, think the federal government is intrusive. I think you should have said we need to balance freedom with personal responsibility.

Unfortunately, there are times where I believe the president is somewhat disingenuous (lacking sincerity). When discussing the way the news gets hyped, the president said "that's something that I think has to change. And it starts with me."

I wish he actually took this to heart. The president has had SEVERAL chances to start the change. He could have spoke out quickly when former President Carter made his comments. He could have spoken to the House of Representatives leaders who pushed for reprimand of Rep. Joe Wilson. Anytime the race card is played, the president can speak out and quiet the rumors quickly. Instead the president doesn't speak and lets the fire start burning.

This animosity between the North and South...

It's unusual for me to comment on a book before I finish reading it, but in this case I just had to do so. I'm reading Nelson DeMille's story about an Vietnam War Veteran who goes back to investigate a murder that took place during the war. I'll do a full review on the story in a few days when I finish the book.

The subject line is part of a quote from the book and it struck me in that it could pertain to the struggle we in the U.S. continue to have with race. I've always thought that if the Civil War and the Reconstruction had taken place differently, race relations would be different. Maybe I take it a little to personally, but I've always felt that we Southerners unfairly get the blame for a lot of racial issues.

The book has nothing to do with race relations (or does it?) but everything to do with war. DeMille has some very colorful descriptions of battles and the characters "detective work." Bottom line, it's not a story for children.

The entire quote: "This animosity between the North and South Viets, the victor and the vanquished, went on, and it was a very complex thing, having less to do with the war, I thought, than what came after. War is simple; peace is complex."

What do you think? Does this apply to the Yankees and the Rebels?

a great loss

Yesterday, my former father-in-law passed away. Some of you know that I was married before I met my current wife. I still kept in touch with her family, especially her dad. He was an important man in my life and one that I admired greatly.


I never called him by his first name, it was always Mr. Tumblin. For someone to have gone through as much pain and suffering, he was an exceptionally happy man. He grew up in the depression and I never heard him complain about it. He dropped out of college to go to war, but I never heard him complain about that either. And believe me, I heard a LOT of stories about his time in the army.


After the war, he went to college again, but never finished. He got married and started a family. He was a rural route postal carrier and was proud of what he did. His daughter had open heart surgery at the age of four. Being the man he was, he just kept going, dealt with all the fears and pains without complaint.


One of his greatest joys was his grand-children. having 5 grand-daughters and one grand-son, he loved having them around. Once he decided to buy hearing aids and spent a small fortune on them. Unfortunately, they didn't solve his most pressing need - he wanted to hear his grandchildren. These little ones had high pitched voices and even with the aides, he couldn't hear them. The hearing aides wound in in a drawer, unused.


He lost his wife to cancer. He sat by her side for the few months she was in the hospital. He taught me an important lesson - we asked what we could do and he said "Just pray!". Several years later, he lost his only daughter after a short illness. The lesson I learned from him then was we just needed to be thankful for the time we had her.


One of the most important lessons he taught me was on the unlikely subject of racism. He grew up in a time and place where races were treated differently. It wasn't a matter of hatred. It was just what was done. But he also showed love to one individual of another race who touched his life. He showed it by caring for her when her own family wouldn't. And he showed respect to others, based not on the color of their skin, but based on what they did and what they could do. He showed me that racism can be overcome, one person at a time.


I had breakfast with Mr. Tumblin last week. We talked and he told stories. I'm not sure if I could remember a single one, but I'd probably heard them all several times. I'm glad that I was able to share the time with him and hope that I made his heart a little lighter for that day.


The last several times I had breakfast with him, I had noticed some of his problems. Trembling hands, sometimes forgetting where he was in a story, other problems that he wouldn't want me to mention. He was beginning to face the reality that he might not be able to take care of himself. Because of the man he was, I knew this would be a problem for him. In some ways, I'm not sure if he could have lived that way. Now that problem is solved. I've heard him talk about his faith and I know he was a Christian, so I'm not worried about his soul. I know he's in a place of no more suffering.


I knew him for for 30 years and if I live another 30, I hope that I can begin to live like he did. We will miss him greatly.

Obama's Speech on Racism - part 3

This is probably my last post on this speech. The first post basically summarized the speech. The second post commented on the first part of the speech (on racism). This part will focus on the last part of the speech, where Obama transitions.

It's important to note that I think Obama is highly intelligent and I noticed him at the Democratic Convention in 2004. He's a man with a future, but I am suprised that he as risen to this level this fast.

Obama's speech talked in great detail on Racism. But the actual speech was titled "A More Perfect Union". Many in the press thought this would be his speech to defend Rev. Wright or to distance himself. He did talk about Rev. Wright and to some small degree both defended him and distanced himself. But I believe that this all set the stage for what Obama sees as the way to form "A More Perfect Union."

Roughly 4500 words into his speech, Obama transitions. He says "we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division..." Then he points out "if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction." I agree. Racism and Rev. Wright are a distraction. Focusing on these issues (and others like them) take the focus off the real problems in our nation. Obama (and I) has a better idea "we can come together and say, 'Not this time.'"

So what does Obama think we should focus on? Here's where my opinion and the Senator's diverge. Obama lists 1) "crumbling schools that are stealing the future of (all) children" first. Then he talks about 2) health care, 3) the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life (and offshoring) and 4) "how to bring (soliders) home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged."

Here's my differences: 1) Schools should not be federally run. Nothing in the constitution says that every one has a right to education. Leave the schools up to the states and local authorities. Get the federal government out.

2) Health care is an issue, but more of an economic issue. I've talked about my view on healthcare in another blog post (see it here)

3) Job protection (shuttered mills) and offshoring - Obama doesn't say what he will do here. I haven't studied enough of his platform to figure it out. I see the economy as a second tier issue, my comments are here.

4) Obama says the war in Iraq should not have been waged and we should bring the soldiers home. I disagree on both parts. We (including the UN) told Iraq and the world NUMEROUS times that they should comply with certain resolutions and they did not. We looked like the bully who drew a line in the sand, but backed down when the other guy crossed it. Hussein was a ruthles dictator who ground people up in meat grinders. He wiped out most of the Kurds and let his own people die will he lined his pockets. We watched as other countries skirted the economic blockades and profited at our expense. My only complaint is that we waited too long. Actions should have been taken sooner.

As for withdrawing the troops, if we do that now, Iraq will crumble. We have a moral obligation to protect the people and to help rebuild. We did this in Japan and Germany after WWII. It will not be over soon. There have been problems in the way this has been handled, but we shouldn't penalize the Iraqi people because of our cowardice.

5) Nowhere in Obama's speech does he talk about National Security. I believe this should be the #1 issue in 2008 and beyond. He ignores terrorism and in other speeches says we should sit down with known terrorist leaders.

While Obama only spent about 400 words on what it takes to form "A More Perfect Union", I believe this represents his ideas. While he wants to move the focus off of racism, he wants to move to the wrong items. And the way he focuses on those items is wrong.

Obama's Speech on Racism - part 2

Earlier this week, I posted a synopsis of Obama's speech on racism. I also drew analogies to Dan Quayle's speech on Murphy Brown. What a strange combination, but go read my post if you question in. (I did take a pot-shot at Al Gore - no apologies).

Today, I want to comment on the first half of Sen. Obama's speech (the second half transitioned to other politics) which was purely about racisim.

Basically, I agree with everything Obama said in this part of his speech. The senator for Illinois is very articulate and obviously educated. He made good reference to our Constitution and the way it was formed. He also realized that government may be able to end slavery, but it can't end prejudice.

Most impressive to me, is the fact that Obama doesn't believe everyone who utters a racial slur is in fact a racist. Obama talks about his own white grandmother who expressed fear of blacks and made comments that today are considered unacceptable. But from his tone, he still loves his grandmother, despite her prejudices.

I also support Obama's directions to help resolve some of the problems. He talks about the responsibilities of parenthood and the need for personal responsibility. He talks about about black & white getting along and realizing that racism is real, but not necessarily the source of every problem. And he talks about racism being a distraction to solving real problems.

I can find nothing wrong with anything Sen. Obama said about racism. He accepts responsibility himself and makes it personal. He challenges you and me. He also admits that government (or "parchment") is not the way to solve every problem.

I'll talk more about the other parts in his speech in another post.

Obama's speech on racism

Warning: This entry could surprise my friends on both sides of the political aisle.

If you're like me, you heard tons about Obama's speech on racism. I've heard nothing positive about it. I listen mostly to conservative talk radio and no one expects them to say anything good about Obama. I also listen to the big networks and they had nothing positive to say either. Years ago I tried listening to liberal talk radio and I just couldn't stomach it.

In 1992, Dan Quayle made his famous Murphy Brown speech. This was when Al Gore was still inventing the internet, so I depended on the main-stream media to read the real speech. By the time it came out, most political candidates had changed their tune and were supporting Quayle's ideas, if not his speech. What a turn-around!

I learned from that experience to go to the source. So today, I took time to read Obama's speech. You can find it here. To my surprise, I found very little in Obama's words with which I disagree.

Sen. Obama's speech included lots of words about Rev. Wright, but that was no more the topic than was Quayle's speech about a TV character back in 1992 (it was about a poverty of values, including absent fathers - which Obama mentioned also). Rather, Obama was talking for the first half of the speech about racism in America. I thought he did a good job expaining the situation. Yes, he spent time defending his views on Wright, but that's not all the speech is about.

At this point, I should indentify myself as a white American. Born and raised in the south and proud of it. I have looked back for about 4 generations and all of these ancestors were raised in the south. I don't know if any ever owned slaves, but I know some fought in the civil war (and not for the north). I do know that some of my relatives have harbored racist feelings and for that I am not proud. I'll also apologize to anyone offended by the term "black". I'll use that in this entry: it's what Obama used in his speech and it's shorter than "African American". I should also point out that I will assume that his speech matches the way Obama feels. I have no doubt that he has speech writers who wrote good portions of the speech, but he gets all the credit and all the blame.

Obama's speech was very well written and shows a good bit of intelligence. Four years ago, I realized that this man was going to be somebody. Starting with a quotation from the Constitution and tracing slavery through the halls of the Philadelphia convention, Obama spoke without malice about the process and the realization that "words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage."

Senator Obama gets it. Neither then, nor now, can "words on parchment" solve the problem. He also gets it that racism cuts both ways. He talks about "white racism" and "divisive comments" by Wright.

Then he transitions his speech. "Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze"
In other words, both black and white racism distract us from the real problems. I agree 100%. He says that "to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding." In all, I think he spoke more about reverse racism (anti-white) than he did about racism (anti-black). I haven't counted words and think that that too would "block the path to understanding."

What are the real problems? Obama sites these items: 1) Big Business, 2) Washington politics and 3) economic policies that favor the few over the many.

He identifies some specific actions for blacks: 1) embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past, 2) continuing to insist on justice and 3) binding our particular grievances to the larger aspirations of all Americans. This is also where he talks about absent fathers (where's Quayle when you need him?).

He identifies some specific actions for whites: acknowledge that racism is real with both words and deeds (investing in schools and communities, enforcing civil rights laws, providing "ladders of opportunities).

Then he transitions again by asking us not to focus on racism. Instead he wants us to focus on education, on health care, jobs (and offshoring) and bringing the troops home "from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged".

He also mentioned that Wright sees "the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily (with) ... allies like Israel, instead of (starting with ) radical Islam."

So, that's a condensation of Obama's speech, I'll explore my comments on it in a couple of days. I'd be interested in your comments. I'd be especially interested in any comments on the comparisons between Obama and Quayle.